You're viewing all posts tagged with parenting
Your parents are the first memo to come across your desk, on a page so large you can’t see past its edges.
- from Jonathan Lethem’s The Ecstasy of Influence
A new report on why children in day care are sedentary suggests that it’s not the care providers, but the parents, who are mostly to blame.

Parents are the biggest obstacle to letting kids play, says study in Pediatrics - On Parenting - The Washington Post (via npr)

This is why I just let Bean crawl around. If he wants to eat the rocking chair legs, who am I to say he shouldn’t?  He’s learning about those legs!

(via italicsmine)

======================

Exactly! Let Bean crawl. Let Bean gnaw rocking chair legs. Let Bean become close personal friends with our planet’s pitiless, fascinating gravitational tug.

A few things.

First, a deep breath and a quote from the actual study:

Our findings should be interpreted as exploratory, because this was a qualitative study of child care providers within a single county in Ohio. The primary purpose of qualitative research is to probe phenomena in-depth, not to generalize the results to other populations.

Also, they talked to “nine focus groups with 49 child care providers” and zero parents, so the stuff I’m about to quote about parents being “mostly to blame” is, in some sense, secondhand.

Still, this craziness:

Another surprising finding was that a societal focus on “academics” extended even to the preschool-aged group. Several commented that parents wanted to know what their child “learned” that day, but were not interested in whether they had gone outside, or had mastered fundamental gross motor skills. Participants felt that academics were valued by both low- and upper-income parents, and thus were motivated to demonstrate a “purpose” for gross motor time so that the children would not be seen as  just “running around.”

There’s pretty much only one question I ask our kids at the end of their school day. I ask it with genuine enthusiasm because there’s literally never been a time that asking it has yielded a sighing, stereotypical “Nothing.” This is the question: “Hey, what did you guys do at recess today?”

I like the study’s marching orders for doctors:

Recognizing that school readiness is a prevalent concern, pediatricians may need to highlight for parents the many learning benefits of outdoor play (better concentration, learning about science, negotiation with peers), and reassure parents that active time does not need to come at the expense of time dedicated to “academics” and “learning.” Because we have previously reported that children sometimes are dressed unsuitably for active play, pediatricians can remind parents about the importance of “dressing for success,” which in preschool would be dressed for active play. … Last, in dispensing injury prevention advice, pediatricians should be careful not to reinforce messages that physical activity is inherently dangerous.

Speaking of dangerous, I came home from the library yesterday with a somewhat unhinged book called 50 Dangerous Things (you should let your kids do). The kids and I ended up chewing on aluminum foil and tasting the meaning of, in the book’s words, “foil will create a weak electric current when it contacts the acid in your saliva. If you have any fillings, you may experience an odd tingling in your teeth as the metal in the fillings conducts the electricity to the nerves nearby.” (This would be a good point to stress that our kids aren’t nearly as young as the kids in the study. Start with chewing rocking chair legs. Your preschooler has years to work up to chewing foil.)

- David Quigg, 1/4/2012

(this post was reblogged from italicsmine)

I think Woodsy Owl will back me up on this

From the New York mag piece on Joan Didion and her soon-to-be published book:

Susan Traylor, Quintana’s best friend since nursery school, used to envy the structure of Quintana’s household—but Quintana envied the freedom of Traylor’s. “It used to drive her crazy that her parents were so on top of things,” says Traylor. She remembers warmly one ride to elementary school with Dunne and his daughter. Quintana showed him a paper she was going to turn in. He asked her if she’d given it to him or Didion to proof, and when she said no, he threw it out the window.

My way of being a dad isn’t the only way to be a dad. Obviously.

I won’t know for decades whether my way of being a dad is damaging my kids or helping them grow up to be happy, fulfilled, competent, compassionate people. Still, throwing a kid’s paper out the window because she didn’t get it proofed seems problematic, if only because of the littering.

But it’s an episode the best friend “remembers warmly.” Maybe I’m missing something.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Woodsy Owl.

when Amazon’s algorithms learn to predict exactly what we’ll want delivered thirty years in advance …

Thank you for ordering “Go the F**k to Sleep” by Adam Mansbach and Ricardo Cortés. Would you like to pre-order a dozen cases of Cutty Sark and an MP3 of “Cat’s In The Cradle” for delivery on June 29, 2041?

By mistaking my physical self for the world and exerting my power over that, I could experience the sensations of triumph while remaining essentially harmless: preoccupied, physically weak, inhabiting a world more narrowly circumscribed, in these ways, than my mother’s had been. When I think on those years, the waste of time is what I most regret; all that thought and worry, those physical trials. I could have learned Greek or Latin with that time. I could have built a boat and sailed around the world. But these regrets are subsumed, finally, by sheer relief at having been released from that tiny box of thought, subtly, almost without my noticing, somewhere around the time I published a novel. That was my first, tentative brush with the world beyond myself, and it led me to imagine what real power might feel like.


An eating disorder is partly a disease of consciousness, of perspective — hence its insidiousness, and also its contagion. Attitudes toward food are taught and learned, but once food becomes entangled with notions of good and evil, it can be nearly impossible to extricate. Nor can one give it up altogether. Eating disorders have become part of our culture, and they’ll multiply and reproduce with lives of their own. We can’t take them back. But unlike our mothers, who were as blindsided by their arrival as we, I and my generation know exactly what they are. I don’t have children yet, but when Marcia spelled out D-I-E-T, I made myself a promise: If I ever have a daughter, I’ll keep the cult of food consciousness outside her range of vision for as long as I can, so that when it finds her some other way, as it surely will, she won’t see me as its silent advocate.

- Jennifer Egan in 1997

(via The Essayist)

ONE MORE THOUGHT (added a few minutes later): Since posting, I’ve been thinking about how we’ve approached this differently. As with anything, we won’t fully know for decades whether we’ve made the right choices for our kids. But I’m struck by that last bit of the Egan quote: “I’ll keep the cult of food consciousness outside her range of vision for as long as I can, so that when it finds her some other way, as it surely will, she won’t see me as its silent advocate.”

When it comes to the insidious forces our kids grow up with, I’ve assumed — maybe wrongly — that anything short of vocal dissent will be perceived as silent advocacy. Consider a white mom in 1950s Alabama who decides to keep racism outside of her daughter’s “range of vision for as long as I can, so that when it finds her some other way, as it surely will, she won’t see me as its silent advocate.”

premature Father’s Day gift idea

We can probably agree that: 1) It’s too early for Father’s Day gift ideas; 2) It’s reckless of me to decide on page 64 of 180 that Chris Bachelder’s Abbott Awaits will make a terrific Father’s Day gift.

I don’t want to be reckless. So let’s forget Father’s Day. Let’s just look at some of the passages from Abbott Awaits that I read today.

From page 37:

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of small rocks within Abbott’s reach. The girl drops the rock in the grate, smiles when she hears the noise. “More rocks?” she says. A dog barks in some backyard. A cloud covers and then uncovers the sun. Campus is distant and theoretical, like a galaxy or heaven. There is something beyond tedium. You can pass all the way through tedium and come out the other side, and this is Abbott’s gift today.

The entire text of the chapter on page 38:

Abbott would like to think he’s a good guy, and yet his wife is up there sobbing, and he’s down here with the superglue.

From page 28:

A marriage, especially a marriage with children, cannot function properly if both its constituents are in foul temper, thus the Bad Mood is a privilege only one spouse can enjoy at a time. Who gets to be in a Bad Mood? This is the day-to-day struggle.

From page 43:

Amidst the toys in the family room is a battery-operated light-sensitive jungle-animal-sounds puzzle, given to Abbott’s daughter either by a childless friend of Abbott or a friend of Abbott who hates Abbott. Tonight, like all the nights, Abbott and his wife clean the family room after putting their daughter to bed. Tonight, like all the nights, when they turn off the light after cleaning they activate a loud light-sensitive jungle-animal sound—an unspecifically savage squawk from the bottom of the puzzle crate. A monkey, perhaps, or parrot. Tonight, like all the nights, the jungle-animal sound is an agonizing surprise, an ambush. Abbott and his wife laugh and say curse words. Shit and fuck, for instance. The imprecations, because they are directed at a puzzle for children ages two to four, seem more vulgar and thus more satisfying.

From page 12:

Abbott’s dog is a sturdy, fit, and handsome yellow Lab that just might be, pound for pound, God’s most timorous creation. The dog has always been terribly afraid of thunder, fireworks, and backfiring engines, but the scope and intensity of his fear have increased as he has aged. At eleven, he now fears airplanes, garbage trucks, delivery vans, other dogs, cats, people, loud birds and bugs, scarecrows, snowmen, kites and flags, some trees, heavy rain, light rain, fog, cloudy skies, partly cloudy skies, gusts of wind, refreshing summer breezes. Also, he seems scared of what can most accurately be described as nothing.

From pages 61 and 62:

This morning Abbott is sitting on his back deck having coffee and reading the newspaper with Ted, Margot, Oliver, Vince, and Chester, who are all imaginary people. … Margot is laughing. She has her head tilted back and her mouth open with her buck teeth pointed upward as if to take a big bite out of the sky. She is gorgeous and buzzing. She pats Abbott on the forearm and says, “You just made my day.” Abbott has a gigantic crush on Margot. If he were not married to a real woman and if he did not have dried applesauce on his neck and if Margot were not always off backpacking through terrifying countries, he thinks he might propose to her this instant.

From page 54:

It’s late and still awfully hot when Abbott discovers, on the Internet, a petition to prohibit the painting of hermit crab shells. The petition is beautiful, Abbott understands, precisely because it is futile. He suspects that he would not like to be in the same room with any of these 298 dissenters, but he loves them virtually and from afar.

From page 52 and 53:

What he’s doing is cleaning vomited raspberries out of his daughter’s car seat with antibacterial moist wipes. He is reminded of the exceptionally strong mythical hero who had to clean out the dirty stables. He is trying not to be reminded of the exceptionally strong mythical hero who had to perform the same bad job over and over. … Abbott’s sweat drips down into the vomit, and he arrives again in paradox. The following propositions are both true: (A) Abbott would not, given the opportunity, change one significant element of his life, but (B) Abbott cannot stand his life.

I guess it’s worth pointing out that this has not been a copy-and-paste job. I’ve got the open paperback pinned down with an empty drinking glass. There’s joy in typing out Bachelder’s words, whether they’re in Abbott Awaits or in the other stuff I’ve read by him. I’m so happy to not even be halfway done with this novel.

I had forgotten how thrilling a snow day is until my son started school, and as much as he loves it, he swoons at the idea of a free day arriving unexpectedly, laid out like a gift. I’m happy to be reminded that an ordinary day full of nothing but nothingness can make you feel like you’ve won the lottery.
- Susan Orlean, from a 1/12/11 post that I missed until a few minutes ago.
Played 10 times
[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

KUOW — one of our local NPR stations — interviewed Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother author Amy Chua. Chua is the one who wrote this hardcore piece in the Wall Street Journal under the fighting-words headline “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” I read it, felt appalled and wondered if passages could be used to prosecute Chua for child abuse. So it’s good to hear Chua’s actual voice, and it’s better still to realize that her approach to being a mom seems to be way more nuanced than it came across in the WSJ.

The KUOW segment, which runs about 20 minutes, also includes some words from Po Bronson, co-author of an extremely worthwhile book called NurtureShock. Bronson blogs here.

“the filial light under their banter”

Immediately after finishing Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence earlier this month, I wrote that the novel “kind of wrecked me.” Setting aside whether a person can be wrecked in a “kind of” kind of way, I’m glad to say that I’ve found a way to be much less wrecked.

Let’s pause. If you haven’t read The Age of Innocence, go read it. I hope it won’t seem defeatist so early in the writing of this post for me to predict — with total certainty — that you will like Wharton’s novel better than whatever I end up writing here.

Here, in as basic a form as I can manage, is why I’m feeling less wrecked: I’m a dad.

Newland Archer, the man at the center of The Age of Innocence, is a dad. Because of an unplanned pregnancy, he stays in a marriage he wants to flee. Meanwhile, he lets himself become marooned and remote,  stranded in the imagined life he wished for with Ellen, his wife’s cousin:

… (He) built up within himself a kind of sanctuary in which she throned among his secret thoughts and longings. Little by little it became the scene of his real life, of his only rational activities; thither he brought the books he read, the ideas and feelings which nourished him, his judgments and his visions. Outside it, in the scene of his actual life, he moved with a growing sense of unreality and insufficiency, blundering against familiar prejudices and traditional points of view as an absent-minded man goes on bumping into the furniture of his own room. Absent—that was what he was: so absent from everything most densely real and near to those about him that it sometimes startled him to find they still imagined he was there.

Yet, by the end of the novel, that unplanned pregnancy has become a grownup son named Dallas. Of Dallas and Newland, Wharton writes “the two were born comrades.” So Dallas — now engaged to marry Fanny Beaufort — wants Newland to join him for a father-son trip to France, and Newland — now a widower — decides to “seize this last chance of being alone with his boy.”

They go.

In Paris, Wharton shows readers that Dallas possesses precisely the sort of bluntness that Newland would have needed to change his own life. Here’s the exchange when Dallas tells a frazzled Newland that he’s arranged for them to call on Ellen, the (ostensibly secret) love of Newland’s life:

“You told her I was here?”

“Of course—why not?” Dallas’s eye brows went up whimsically. Then, getting no answer, he slipped his arm through his father’s with a confidential pressure.

“I say, father: what was she like?”

Archer felt his colour rise under his son’s unabashed gaze. “Come, own up: you and she were great pals, weren’t you? Wasn’t she most awfully lovely?”

“Lovely? I don’t know. She was different.”

“Ah—there you have it! That’s what it always comes to, doesn’t it? When she comes, SHE’S DIFFERENT—and one doesn’t know why. It’s exactly what I feel about Fanny.”

His father drew back a step, releasing his arm. “About Fanny? But, my dear fellow—I should hope so! Only I don’t see—”

“Dash it, Dad, don’t be prehistoric! Wasn’t she—once—your Fanny?”

Dallas belonged body and soul to the new generation. He was the first-born of Newland and May Archer, yet it had never been possible to inculcate in him even the rudiments of reserve. “What’s the use of making mysteries? It only makes people want to nose ‘em out,” he always objected when enjoined to discretion. But Archer, meeting his eyes, saw the filial light under their banter.

“My Fanny?”

“Well, the woman you’d have chucked everything for: only you didn’t,” continued his surprising son.

“I didn’t,” echoed Archer with a kind of solemnity.

“No: you date, you see, dear old boy. But mother said—”

“Your mother?”

“Yes: the day before she died. It was when she sent for me alone—you remember? She said she knew we were safe with you, and always would be, because once, when she asked you to, you’d given up the thing you most wanted.”

Archer received this strange communication in silence. His eyes remained unseeingly fixed on the thronged sunlit square below the window. At length he said in a low voice: “She never asked me.”

“No. I forgot. You never did ask each other anything, did you? And you never told each other anything. You just sat and watched each other, and guessed at what was going on underneath. A deaf-and-dumb asylum, in fact! Well, I back your generation for knowing more about each other’s private thoughts than we ever have time to find out about our own.—I say, Dad,” Dallas broke off, “you’re not angry with me? If you are, let’s make it up and go and lunch at Henri’s. I’ve got to rush out to Versailles afterward.”

Dallas, then, is Newland’s escape from that “deaf-and-dumb asylum.” Newland — no matter how the book ends and how that ending wrecked me — is lucky to have Dallas. I mean, lucky doesn’t even cover it. Here’s a man who’s spent his whole life being untrue to himself and inauthentic with the people around him, and he gets to have a child who cares enough to be real with him. Yes, Dallas is about to get married. But “Fanny Beaufort, whatever one might think of her, did not seem likely to interfere with their intimacy. On the contrary, from what he had seen of her, he thought she would be naturally included in it.”

Lucky. Lucky lucky lucky. Lucky!

Whatever tragedy there may be in Newland not ending up with Ellen, it’s clear to me that the greatest tragedy would be him not ending up with Dallas.

I felt an echo of all this tonight in a couple of sentences from Jennifer Egan’s A Visit From the Goon Squad:

Lou put his arm around Rolph. If he were an introspective man, he would have understood years ago that his son is the one person in the world with the power to soothe him.

It’s easy to imagine this only happens to the bad, bad children of bad, bad parents. I had such a notion, back when I thought I knew how to be a good father. But most days, these days, I struggle to be a decent father. I snap at one of my sons, and I see his heart close up. I get caught up in work or distraction and a precious day is gone, another day I didn’t knit up the ever-fraying bonds between father and sons. I want to believe a parent has to be utterly negligent to yield a boy gunning down people on street corners, but then I think of that woman weeping in her bed over her lost, monstrous son, and I don’t know. I simply don’t know.

- Tony Woodlief in a post called “The Loughner boy’s eyes.”

via Daily Dish

I don’t know the first thing about Tony Woodlief. That’s not quite true. I’ve done the laziest kind of vetting imaginable: 30 seconds with his Twitter feed.

Do I know what kind of chummy joshing or bigoted scorn was in Woodlief’s heart when he tweeted that “George Michael’s sissy-boy rendition of ‘Last Christmas’ probably set the gay rights movement back at least 20 years”? No, I don’t. But I’m trying to struggle against one of my more pointless, time-wasting instincts: the urge, when I taste wisdom, to postpone dishing it up for others until I’ve inspected the kitchen of origin for health-code violations.

There’s wisdom and humility and humanity and empathy in the quote at the top of this post. Let’s just leave it at that.

mistakereports:

Mistake #75710: Grousing around a three year old

(this post was reblogged from mistakereports)
Are you really that sensitive or (is) this just some act?

- a question for me from a fellow commenter on Ta-Nehisi Coates’ theatlantic.com blog, where I’d posted the gist of what I’d just written here on my very own blog about the plan to strip the word “nigger” from a new edition of Huck Finn.

My answer, which I’ll italicize since it seems slightly less self-aggrandizing than putting quotation marks around my own words, went like this:

If those are my only two choices, I guess the answer is that I’m “really that sensitive.” I think this gets at something interesting: the difference between being a receiver (reading something silently to oneself) and being a transmitter (reading something aloud to others). For most of Twain’s words, it was a joy to be a transmitter. For “nigger,” I just hit a point where it was too much. Not because it was going to “poison” my kids. I just hated the sound of it coming out of my mouth. To be clear, that’s not Twain’s problem, and I wouldn’t want the text of Huck Finn altered to spare me from saying a word I don’t want to say.

Why am I quoting myself?

First, it’s quicker and lazier than writing something new. (You’re welcome.)

Second, I think I’ve hit on something real with this receiver-transmitter distinction. As Publishers Weekly reported, “The idea of a more politically correct Finn came to the 69-year-old English professor over years of teaching and outreach, during which he habitually replaced the word (‘nigger’) with ‘slave’ when reading aloud.”

Like me, the professor was reading aloud, transmitting. So that struck me.

Then, late on Friday, I read Susan Orlean’s newest blog post, “CAPTAIN UNDERPANTS AND HUCKLEBERRY FINN.” I’m just going to serve up the slice of Orlean’s post that fits the narrow needs of the point I’m trying make here. Go read her whole post, if only to spare yourself the sleeplessness of wondering why a celebrated New Yorker writer is invoking Captain Underpants.

Here, as promised, is the slice of Orlean’s post that might maybe possibly validate my little receiver-transmitter theory:

I faced a somewhat similar word issue in the book I’m writing. In a section about how our perception of German shepherds changed in the nineteen-sixties, I refer to the Charles Moore photographs of Alabama police dogs attacking civil-rights marchers. I found a quote from Birmingham’s police commissioner, Eugene “Bull” Connor, in which he bragged about how effective the dogs had been. His exact statement was “Look at those niggers run.” I was torn about using the quote—not because it somehow didn’t portray Connor accurately (I’m afraid it did) but because I found it almost nauseating to type the word, to imagine having it as part of my book. … I put the quote in, took it out, put it back in, waited a while, and finally made my peace with it. That is what happened; that’s what he said; and as uncomfortable as it made me to put my fingers on my keyboard and spell it out, that word is part of what’s real.

Just as with me and with the professor who dreamed up the sanitized Huck Finn, Orlean’s experience seems to be about taking on the role and responsibility of transmitter, about finding it “almost nauseating to type the word, to imagine having it as part of my book.”

As much as what I’m writing here feels like a fresh insight to me, I will bet every bit of loose change in my pocket that some communications theorist documented this same phenomenon ninety years ago and came up with fancier names than “receiver” and “transmitter.”

He probably got tenure.

All I got was this lousy tenure-themed T-shirt.

(Note: T-shirt not especially lousy. Figure of speech.)